The "Jimmybox" at DVinfo.net

Ken Tanaka · September 6th, 2004, 03:06 PM

I came across this gizmo in the current (August, 2004) issue of Video Systems. I've no idea how good it is but it appears to be a novel idea for handling wireless receivers on cameras that have no provisions for such a device.

Matt Gettemeier · September 6th, 2004, 06:14 PM

You don't want to know what popped into my head when I read Jimmy box... of course I guess not everybody would have heard a reference to "Jimmy".

I clip my receiver onto my belt and run a 3' xlr up to the cam... I'm wondering who will get this "Jimmybox"?

Jimmy McKenzie · September 6th, 2004, 08:27 PM

For those searching for a"work around" this device might just be the ticket.

Ever lock your keys in the car? Of course you have! You gotta "Jimmy" the door open! That's why the tow trucks keep a supply of Slim Jims in the cab!

Maybe I should change my name to MacGyver.

Matt Gettemeier · September 6th, 2004, 09:11 PM

I like your last name... if you're going to change anything I wish your first name was Doug... or Bob... in that order. I see you're even from the Great White North.

We've got some great contributors to this forum who hail from Canada.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · September 6th, 2004, 09:15 PM

I do the same thing, I've got a belt unit, mine's fitted with a walkie talkie mount, but I've forgotten the part number. Just modified one of my brothers Sam Brown belt mounts. (he's a cop)

Aaron Koolen · September 6th, 2004, 09:38 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Gettemeier : You don't want to know what popped into my head when I read Jimmy box... of course I guess not everybody would have heard a reference to "Jimmy".

I clip my receiver onto my belt and run a 3' xlr up to the cam... I'm wondering who will get this "Jimmybox"? -->>>

I'd think about getting it (or something like it), for when I'm shooting events/seminars on a tripod. A nice place to chuck a receiver, rather than velcro to the tripod or lay on the desk/floor. I have an XM2 so there is no place for stuff like receivers on them

Aaron

Bryan Beasleigh · September 6th, 2004, 11:59 PM

There's always the Bracket 1. the guy that developed it is a tad paranoid. He freaked out when i asked dimensions.

Bracket 1 site

B&H sells them for $60

they have several accessory plates to help mount receivers.

I was thinking of mounting a Mix Pre

Aaron Koolen · September 7th, 2004, 01:30 AM

Does he think you'll rip his design off or something? Very strange!

Aaron

Matt Gettemeier · September 7th, 2004, 06:27 AM

I've used my cam in odd configurations fairly often... but without a doubt I've found that the more junk I have up on the pod the worse it works.

Keeping your cam seated DIRECTLY against the top plate of the pod results in the most stability. That extra lift and airspace created by anything on top of the legs will result in more vibration transmitted to your camera then you'd have with a direct contact.

Nobody ever thinks that stuff is a big deal until they have to do a whole day at max telephoto. Don't believe me? Try it... Put your cam on the mini-rover or some other bracket/box which can be attached to the top of your pod... now zoom in and pan around... notice how careful you need to be? There is a difference...

Bryan Beasleigh · September 7th, 2004, 09:56 AM

My mini rover is rock solid and I use it the way you describe with no problem. Mind you, I always attach it properly, I also use a quick release plate.

Bryan Beasleigh · September 7th, 2004, 09:57 AM

My mini rover is rock solid and I use it the way you describe with no problem. Mind you, I always attach it properly, I also use a quick release plate.

Matt Gettemeier · September 7th, 2004, 10:46 AM

Does the mini-rover allow you to have the camera centered over the legs exactly as it would be normally? (Minus the thickness of the Rover of course.)

If you use a bracket that positions your cam off center that's when it can affect the camera... the quick-release plate raises your cam about 1-2mm off the head... if you mount up your cam and then get a light source on the other side you'll see light under whatever portions of the cam aren't touching the quick-release plate.

Then if you use a bracket which positions your cam off to the side that airspace extends over to wherever the camera is... the further the cam is off center the more vibration will be induced.

The mini-rover is probably the most solid of these type products however and maybe it allows you to keep your cam centered over the head? Maybe it's time for me to look into one of those...

Because of how my bracket attaches to my cam it forces the cam to be off to one side... that's when you lose some of the stability of pod mounting... Keep in mind we're talking max telephoto too... an imperceptable vibration at wide angle is a shot-ruining vibration on tele. Even wind moving across a pod can vibrate it too much at full zoom... so adding even a tiny "weakness" to the system will have a pronounced effect at that focal length.

Jay Massengill · September 7th, 2004, 11:39 AM

Matt you might want to search out a couple of simple parts that could help. Some (but not all) camera-mounting thumb-wheel 1/4" studs also have a 1/4" threaded hole directly beneath the stud. This might allow you to center the camera if your stud isn't like this. Which bracket are you using, is there something else that's interfering with placement other than the stud itself? Check photo stores for other studs and adapters like I'm describing.

You can also easily make a stiffener plate from 1/16" aircraft aluminum. Basically it's just a rectangle a little smaller than your camera, with the two holes drilled for the 1/4" stud to pass through as well as the alignment stud in front. The camera doesn't actually attach to this plate like a real baseplate, but it will provide greater stiffness as a sandwich rather than just the limited area that most quick release plates contact. I made one a long time ago for a full-size S-VHS camcorder. It made a big difference and it only weighs a couple of ounces.

My impression from reading the review of the JimmyBox was that it was intended for times when guide audio was being transmitted to the camera from a mixer via a wireless link. In other words the quality of reception didn't have to be perfect. The reason I say this is because this bracket would really put your antennae in a bad location for drop-out free pickup. Otherwise it looked very heavy-duty with a good handle.

Matt Gettemeier · September 7th, 2004, 02:29 PM

I'm using this bracket right HERE.

I thought it was the same basic design as the Rover... but the cam can slide back and forth along the base plate... and the base plate is attached to the quick release plate by either a 1/4 or 3/8 threaded hole... those mounting points are a little over half-way to the verticle arm. The camera can then be slid into position close to that... but it still results in an inch or so of offset.

If I take some material as you suggested and eliminate any airspace between the bracket and head that should do the trick... that may not be a bad idea anyway... if there's a direct contact like that I might have a problem positioning the cam front to back though...

Realize that a lot of people aren't as picky as I am too. I'm referring to any induced vibration while in the process of panning slowly on an object at max telephoto... AND having to touch the cam... for zooming or focus. In a simple pan the cam is fine... The stuff I use is pretty high-end... it's just that I think most likely ANY bracket that doesn't CENTER the cam directly ontop of the head is going to do this. So I figure it would be best to find a bracket that will mount tightly to the cam and also have the camera mount in the exact verticle position it would normally be in... centered over the legs. So if the mini-rover does that... by only changing cam position by raising it the thickness of the base-plate... then fine... if it adds any offset then I'm going to make my own bracket.

Jay Massengill · September 7th, 2004, 03:40 PM

I have a better visual of your problem now. My suggestion for using a new stud that has both a male and female 1/4" would solve your centering problem, but might not be any more vibration free. It appears your camera-attachment thumb-wheel stud is too thin to also have a female 1/4" on the bottom. Am I correct here?
If you use my idea with a new stud, then you wouldn't use the fixed female threads on the bracket or your existing thumb-wheel stud. Instead you'd use the new stud to attach both the camera above and the quick-release plate directly below.
This bracket is so narrow from front to back that I'm not sure my plate idea would give you much more stability. I was intending that the new plate would go between the camera and the bracket. It would become a longer, rigid support for the camera, which is what you're bearing on when you adjust the lens, rather than going between the quick-release and the bracket.

September 6th, 2004, 03:06 PM	#1
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	The "Jimmybox" I came across this gizmo in the current (August, 2004) issue of Video Systems. I've no idea how good it is but it appears to be a novel idea for handling wireless receivers on cameras that have no provisions for such a device. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

September 6th, 2004, 09:15 PM	#5
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	I do the same thing, I've got a belt unit, mine's fitted with a walkie talkie mount, but I've forgotten the part number. Just modified one of my brothers Sam Brown belt mounts. (he's a cop) __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

September 6th, 2004, 09:38 PM	#6
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Gettemeier : You don't want to know what popped into my head when I read Jimmy box... of course I guess not everybody would have heard a reference to "Jimmy". I clip my receiver onto my belt and run a 3' xlr up to the cam... I'm wondering who will get this "Jimmybox"? -->>> I'd think about getting it (or something like it), for when I'm shooting events/seminars on a tripod. A nice place to chuck a receiver, rather than velcro to the tripod or lay on the desk/floor. I have an XM2 so there is no place for stuff like receivers on them Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

September 6th, 2004, 11:59 PM	#7
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	There's always the Bracket 1. the guy that developed it is a tad paranoid. He freaked out when i asked dimensions. Bracket 1 site B&H sells them for $60 they have several accessory plates to help mount receivers. I was thinking of mounting a Mix Pre __________________ Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ".......holy smokin rubber lips...what a ride!"

September 7th, 2004, 01:30 AM	#8
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Does he think you'll rip his design off or something? Very strange! Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

September 6th, 2004, 06:14 PM	#2
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	You don't want to know what popped into my head when I read Jimmy box... of course I guess not everybody would have heard a reference to "Jimmy". I clip my receiver onto my belt and run a 3' xlr up to the cam... I'm wondering who will get this "Jimmybox"?

September 6th, 2004, 08:27 PM	#3
Jimmy McKenzie Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Waterloo Ontario Posts: 721	For those searching for a"work around" this device might just be the ticket. Ever lock your keys in the car? Of course you have! You gotta "Jimmy" the door open! That's why the tow trucks keep a supply of Slim Jims in the cab! Maybe I should change my name to MacGyver.

September 6th, 2004, 09:11 PM	#4
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	I like your last name... if you're going to change anything I wish your first name was Doug... or Bob... in that order. I see you're even from the Great White North. We've got some great contributors to this forum who hail from Canada.

September 7th, 2004, 06:27 AM	#9
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	I've used my cam in odd configurations fairly often... but without a doubt I've found that the more junk I have up on the pod the worse it works. Keeping your cam seated DIRECTLY against the top plate of the pod results in the most stability. That extra lift and airspace created by anything on top of the legs will result in more vibration transmitted to your camera then you'd have with a direct contact. Nobody ever thinks that stuff is a big deal until they have to do a whole day at max telephoto. Don't believe me? Try it... Put your cam on the mini-rover or some other bracket/box which can be attached to the top of your pod... now zoom in and pan around... notice how careful you need to be? There is a difference...

September 7th, 2004, 09:56 AM	#10
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	My mini rover is rock solid and I use it the way you describe with no problem. Mind you, I always attach it properly, I also use a quick release plate. __________________ Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ".......holy smokin rubber lips...what a ride!"

September 7th, 2004, 09:57 AM	#11
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	My mini rover is rock solid and I use it the way you describe with no problem. Mind you, I always attach it properly, I also use a quick release plate. __________________ Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ".......holy smokin rubber lips...what a ride!"

September 7th, 2004, 10:46 AM	#12
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	Does the mini-rover allow you to have the camera centered over the legs exactly as it would be normally? (Minus the thickness of the Rover of course.) If you use a bracket that positions your cam off center that's when it can affect the camera... the quick-release plate raises your cam about 1-2mm off the head... if you mount up your cam and then get a light source on the other side you'll see light under whatever portions of the cam aren't touching the quick-release plate. Then if you use a bracket which positions your cam off to the side that airspace extends over to wherever the camera is... the further the cam is off center the more vibration will be induced. The mini-rover is probably the most solid of these type products however and maybe it allows you to keep your cam centered over the head? Maybe it's time for me to look into one of those... Because of how my bracket attaches to my cam it forces the cam to be off to one side... that's when you lose some of the stability of pod mounting... Keep in mind we're talking max telephoto too... an imperceptable vibration at wide angle is a shot-ruining vibration on tele. Even wind moving across a pod can vibrate it too much at full zoom... so adding even a tiny "weakness" to the system will have a pronounced effect at that focal length.

September 7th, 2004, 11:39 AM	#13
Jay Massengill Trustee Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Burlington Posts: 1,976	Matt you might want to search out a couple of simple parts that could help. Some (but not all) camera-mounting thumb-wheel 1/4" studs also have a 1/4" threaded hole directly beneath the stud. This might allow you to center the camera if your stud isn't like this. Which bracket are you using, is there something else that's interfering with placement other than the stud itself? Check photo stores for other studs and adapters like I'm describing. You can also easily make a stiffener plate from 1/16" aircraft aluminum. Basically it's just a rectangle a little smaller than your camera, with the two holes drilled for the 1/4" stud to pass through as well as the alignment stud in front. The camera doesn't actually attach to this plate like a real baseplate, but it will provide greater stiffness as a sandwich rather than just the limited area that most quick release plates contact. I made one a long time ago for a full-size S-VHS camcorder. It made a big difference and it only weighs a couple of ounces. My impression from reading the review of the JimmyBox was that it was intended for times when guide audio was being transmitted to the camera from a mixer via a wireless link. In other words the quality of reception didn't have to be perfect. The reason I say this is because this bracket would really put your antennae in a bad location for drop-out free pickup. Otherwise it looked very heavy-duty with a good handle.

September 7th, 2004, 02:29 PM	#14
Matt Gettemeier Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 936	I'm using this bracket right HERE. I thought it was the same basic design as the Rover... but the cam can slide back and forth along the base plate... and the base plate is attached to the quick release plate by either a 1/4 or 3/8 threaded hole... those mounting points are a little over half-way to the verticle arm. The camera can then be slid into position close to that... but it still results in an inch or so of offset. If I take some material as you suggested and eliminate any airspace between the bracket and head that should do the trick... that may not be a bad idea anyway... if there's a direct contact like that I might have a problem positioning the cam front to back though... Realize that a lot of people aren't as picky as I am too. I'm referring to any induced vibration while in the process of panning slowly on an object at max telephoto... AND having to touch the cam... for zooming or focus. In a simple pan the cam is fine... The stuff I use is pretty high-end... it's just that I think most likely ANY bracket that doesn't CENTER the cam directly ontop of the head is going to do this. So I figure it would be best to find a bracket that will mount tightly to the cam and also have the camera mount in the exact verticle position it would normally be in... centered over the legs. So if the mini-rover does that... by only changing cam position by raising it the thickness of the base-plate... then fine... if it adds any offset then I'm going to make my own bracket.

September 7th, 2004, 03:40 PM	#15
Jay Massengill Trustee Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Burlington Posts: 1,976	I have a better visual of your problem now. My suggestion for using a new stud that has both a male and female 1/4" would solve your centering problem, but might not be any more vibration free. It appears your camera-attachment thumb-wheel stud is too thin to also have a female 1/4" on the bottom. Am I correct here? If you use my idea with a new stud, then you wouldn't use the fixed female threads on the bracket or your existing thumb-wheel stud. Instead you'd use the new stud to attach both the camera above and the quick-release plate directly below. This bracket is so narrow from front to back that I'm not sure my plate idea would give you much more stability. I was intending that the new plate would go between the camera and the bracket. It would become a longer, rigid support for the camera, which is what you're bearing on when you adjust the lens, rather than going between the quick-release and the bracket.